As a gamer myself, I can’t be too hard on other gamers. I mean, I like to shoot stuff as much as any of them, clutching my Xbox controller or Game Boy with fervent dedication, annihilating alien species, and sniping opponents with glee. Because shooting stuff, like videogames in general, is fun.
But like any other pop-cultural art form, videogames are reflective of the time and society in which they’re created. And thanks to George W. Bush, videogames have rarely been more accurate when it comes to wartime violence. War and soldier simulators aren’t my type of games, mind you, but they are exceedingly popular and profitable: From Full Spectrum Warrior and America’s Army (which the US Army helped to develop, with hopes they’d be useful as recruitment tools) to Conflict Desert Storm II: Back to Baghdad and the Tom Clancy-inspired Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, never has it been easier–or more convincingly realistic–to engage in espionage, shooting, detonations, international conflict, and good old-fashioned G.I. Joe-esque adventures.
For gamers, it’s clear where the benefits are in this new slew of war-inspired games. Videogame violence–as long as it fits within patriotic parameters–has never been more acceptable, plus there’s a game-friendly, stereotypical enemy to align against, and the news practically showcases made-for-videogame-level battlefields–mosques, sand dunes, etc.–every night. For videogame publishers, the trend is nothing but profit; as long as the Bush administration keeps us at war, they’ll have plenty of subject matter.
Ironically, the only people this might be bad for are conservative-leaning politicians who are on the crusade against videogame violence. But it looks like they need to learn who to go after if they’re serious about getting rid of war-inspired videogames. Maybe instead of blaming 13-year-olds with PS2s for the propagation of war as entertainment, they should instead look to the White House.
